It's a mystery that we cannot really boil down to absolute facts. The conciliar church isn't exactly the True Church, but it's not completely separate either.

As +ABL said, the modernists and conciliar church occupy the True Church. No one is required to believe this here, but some of us do. In this situation, we have to assume that the True Church is still in Rome, but currently occupied. But what does occupation mean?

Although I believe it can be done, I don't believe we lay people are meant to boil it *all* down to absolute facts.

 It should be enough for us to know that the conciliar religion is not only not Catholic, it is anti-Catholic, this cannot be denied. Knowing this, is knowing that we should avoid everything that has anything to do with it. The reason so many choose to disbelieve that which they cannot deny, is due to their lack of conviction as a result of a lack of faith.

+ABL was right, the modernists and conciliar church do occupy the True Church, Fr. Wathen puts it like this:

"...the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who
maintains membership within it can be saved..."

What is a "fifth column?"
Wiki puts it like this:
"A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack." - describes the situation accurately imo.

No, it's not ambiguous. And if it's just ambiguous then why can't it be a valid ecuмenical council of the Church? Pseudo pope Benedict XVI said it could be interpreted in the light of Tradition too.

Kindly read Alberigo’s 5 Volume History of Vatican II alongside the entirety of the docuмents of Vatican II and their official Latin Relatio then come back and we can discuss this more fruitfully.

It’s not a valid ecuмenical council of the Church because it was convoked, ratified, and closed by two heretics, namely John XXIII and Paul VI then interpreted in discontinuity with Church teaching and Tradition by John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I.

Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity is an abstract intellectual exercise removed from the realities of the situation, not due to the docuмents of the council per se, but due to the post-conciliar ecclesiastical situation.

Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity is an abstract intellectual exercise removed from the realities of the situation, not due to the docuмents of the council per se, but due to the post-conciliar ecclesiastical situation.

This is particularly rich.  Pot, meet kettle. 

Jupiter, what sedevacantist group do you align with?  Where do you assist at mass ... not actual location, but group....? Or do you stay home?  Because I have never known a sedevacantist to hold the views you hold regarding Vatican II.

I hold to the Cassiciacuм Thesis as the best explanation for the ecclesiastical question. However, due to my views on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Communicatio in Sacris, I am not able to attend Mass at any chapel so I am a “home aloner” as some people would describe it.

So because of your extreme interpretation and application of the two, you cut yourself off from otherwise valid sacraments? I would say that's imprudent.

…The longest vacancy of the Holy See has been less than three years, and the episcopate remained one and the same moral body during the interregnum.  And no sane person would claim that the Holy See has been vacant since '89 or '58, nor is that what the insane Sedevacantists are really claiming.  They are claiming that a series of false Pope have been reigning in the Holy See for over 60 years, and that the entire episcopate has recognized them as the legitimate Popes the entire time.  That is a denial of the indefectibility of the Church.…

"But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

In the context of Luke 18, it is difficult to appreciate the phrase, but it strikes me that, when Our Lord comes again, that indefectible Church will be almost invisible, in the catacombs.

I find no promise that the Church will remain large, only that it will remain indefectible.

Who can make the case that the conciliar sect, all 1 billion of them, is true to the Faith?

Dogmatic non una cuм is straight from the pit of Hell and is a tool used by Satan to keep traditional Catholics from comingling or from the sacraments altogether.

I've said this before, but, there is absolutely no historical or Magisterial basis for non una cuм. At all. It is a novelty dreamed up by Bp. Guerard des Lauriers and later catapulted by Fr. Cekada into the only "Catholic" position. Citing an early 19th century English Missal, John Daly noted that the King of England is also prayed una cuм in the Mass following the Pope and the Ordinary; proving that the intention is that the Mass is offered through the office of the one named, not the person. Otherwise, all English Masses would have been mortally sinful to assist at because the Anglican King of England was named una cuм.

Furthermore, we have the Western Schism to look at as well. Where saints, such as St. Vincent Ferrer, supported the later-declared anti-Pope over the true Pope; therefore, meaning that he offered Masses una cuм an anti-Pope, and, by the logic of this position would have been offending God by committing a grave sin. Yet, as we know, St. Vincent was a great saint who was merely mistaken on the identity of the Pope, and therefore, was not at fault. One could retort that anti-Pope Benedict XIII was "orthodox" therefore nullifying any such comparisons between anti-Pope Francis and Benedict XIII. But this, too, is nonsense, as it either way, by their logic, the Masses said by St. Vincent would still be gravely sinful because a false Pope was named in the Canon.

Therefore, to dogmatically declare that there is not only sin attached to assisting at a Mass una cuм Francesco, but even a mortal sin, is beyond the authority of those proclaiming it: namely, SGG and MHTS. It is correct to form an opinion on the Pope question, or even act on it individually, but to teach the laity that it would be a sin to attend an SSPX, or even SSPX-Resistance, Mass because they say it una cuм Francesco is divisive, diabolism.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
[Mark 3:25]

Your examples are not applicable.  You have a St naming a false pope, but the person he named at least outwardly appeared Catholic. Right now we have an idolater non Catholic running around Rome claiming to be the Vicar of Christ on earth.  With a large group of people saying we don't have to listen to this heretic but we have to name him our leader and name him in our masses?  This doesn't make any sense and is irreconcilable with objective reality.  

Yes. The sacraments are indeed valid, but the Sedevacantist priests dispensing them are heretics for rejecting dogmas, nay even waging war on dogmas, of the Church. Bishop Sanborn’s views on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Natural Family Planning makes his group an impossible choice for me otherwise I am most well disposed to his group’s otherwise phenomenal work. They are especially to be commended on their correct understanding of Communicatio in Sacris and their torch bearing of the late Bishop Guerard des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.

But you don't belong to the Church of Sanborn, you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Why reject receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament because of a frail imperfect human albeit a priest?
I can't seem to get past that with home aloners.  What am I missing?